a consumer of spirits, and not the first. Eight countries us eater amount of spirits per head than Russia and therefore it t true that "it leads the world in its use of distilled spirit vidently the author regards production as universally equival consumption, which is an unpardonable error. Clearly the purpose of the author's gross exaggeration of nsumption of intoxicants in the United States is to magnify oblem. A fairer comparison than he makes is to state the pita consumption for different countries of all intoxicants tra ed into a measure of absolute alcohol. According to Grosja d Kaupp's work, he would find that France, Italy, Belgiu witzerland, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Germany, Austi ngary and Bulgaria, in the order named, show a larger per cap e of alcohol than the United States, which ranks tenth. We ha ough intemperance to combat without exaggerating the ca only tends to make people indifferent when they discover that th ve been misled. At the end of the article reference is once more made to t oject of the consumption of liquors. The writer instances rease in the consumption of distilled liquors" in 1912, but fir isolation in "the fact that the Government statistics show th è increase in consumption is in the license territory only, cially in the large cities, and that there is in the white distri ways a reduction." (By white districts are meant no-lice as). A more astounding fabrication of evidence is hardly co vable. No statistics published by the United States Gove with its 75 per cent. of the population under od in which the author makes the preposterous ioned, he further refers to "Government Sta'that the brewers who, it is thought, own 80 per bons, have multiplied the drinking places abGovernment statistics deal so far with saloons ports of the Collector of Internal Revenue how a special tax for the privilege of selling. The ities also show the income from licenses, etc., 000 population. But the Government statistics y or by inference that the brewers have aught to , much less that the number of drinking places d abnormally." Here are the internal revenue e number of persons paying special taxes as in Continental United States, in recent years, in prohibition States, the only official data 219,800 223,524 209,483 208,513 207,764 period beginning with 1908 will probably be entative, as it marks the beginning of an era everal States. Instead of any evidence of the The no-licens The sub graph wh cities in legalized slip in h Saloon L "facts," t to the cer are found large that of prohibi recalled th those non proportion the inferen namely, th dwellers. The a cities are co the genera territory a how should quaint assu "DRY" TERRITORY. The author turns next to the subject of the area said to be und -license and the proportion of the general population living in ne subject so fascinates him that he continues it in a later par aph which contains this amazing assertion: "There are over 20 cies in the United States of 10,000 population or over, where t galized sale of liquor is forbidden." He must have made son p in his addition. According to the year-book of the An loon League for 1913, upon which he relies throughout for t acts," there are 142 cities of 10,000 population or more, accordi the census of 1910, under no-license; and of these no less than e found in prohibition States. To the uninformed it may lo ge that even 142 cities of 10,000 inhabitants or more (87 outsi prohibition States) have voted out the liquor traffic; but when it called that there are 606 such cities in the United States, and th ose nominally under no-license contain only an insignifica oportion of the total urban population, we can hardly endor e inference which the author would have the unwary reader mak mely, that prohibition is making remarkable gains among ci vellers. The actual significance of local prohibition so far as ma ies are concerned, will be considered later. First, let us exami e general statements about the alleged growth of no-licen ritory and no-license population. Are they truthful, and if s w should they be interpreted? Underlying all of them is t aint assumption that the acceptance of local or State prohibiti Throughout the States having adopted local s of this kind are exceedingly numerous. Even s a considerable portion of the population unIf in the same situation. In Indiana, Illinois, chusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Hampifornia, Wisconsin, etc., there are very many hips and towns which have never known a e matter of voting out that institution is a pure rdly a triumph for local prohibition that such it is of dubious value to count their inhabitants | population living under no-license since they impossible to ascertain how many persons are no-license policy, assuming it to be rigidly enare enumeration of the people living technically s a misleading statement of the case. Another thor leaves unnoticed in his estimate of the n in "dry" territory, is its extent prior to the hibitive measures. History records that long of statutory prohibition or local option, many rent parts of the country did not countenance author leaves them out of the reckoning in his e manifold growth of population within “dry” ly, he takes for granted that under the old found on every crossroad and every hamlet, ow to be untrue. far as the cities are concerned is quite another. (icense) intoxican populatio twice as do not b no less th geograph cities (ou sale of lid far as mo no-license But 1 prevalence population large "dry hand, how urbanized born (30.2 no-license per cent. f territory. and Delaw coxicants can be easily and conveniently met. The combin pulation of these 9 cities is slightly over 400,000, or not far fro ice as many as the population of the 6 cities under license, whi not bear the same relation to Boston. There are, in additio less than four towns of over 10,000 population holding the san ographic position to Boston as the 9 cities referred to. Of the ies (outside prohibition States) of 10,000 or over forbidding t e of liquor, no less than 21 are found in Massachusetts, and as more than one-half of them are concerned we have shown t -license vote to be of no special moment as indicating temperan oclivities. Thus there remain only 66 municipalities of 10,0 pulation (outside prohibition States) that vote themselv ry" in the other license States. Here, too, not a few find safe lves in nearby places under license. WHY PEOPLE CHOOSE TO BE "DRY" But the labored effort to establish a relation between t evalence of local prohibition and the extent of the native bo pulation is far from convincing. True, in many States with "ge "dry" area the foreign born population is small. On the oth nd, how will the author explain the fact that Massachuset banized as it is, and with an enormous percentage of forei rn (30.2 per cent.) has 32 per cent. of its inhabitants living -license territory, while Missouri, largely rural, and with but r cent. foreign born, has only 37 per cent. living in no-licen critory. Here are some other facts to ponder over: Maryla d Delaware both have about 7 per cent. foreign born, a |